Problems With Evolution (To Name a Few)

I am in a class at Saint Leo University right now called "The Human Behavior Perspective." Chapter Two discussion was about evolution. I have listed my post below in its entirety. I haven't gotten much feedback from my class. Maybe someone else out there in cyberspace would like to respond.

Discuss the Theory of Evolution:

Is it what you have learned earlier?

This depends on what one means by "earlier." I have been familiar with the theory of evolution for most of my life, but have been taught alternate possibilities as well.

Do you believe in it or not?
No I do not.

State the reasons why:

This topic is extremely broad and is impossible to discuss in a few paragraphs. However, let me raise a few serious objections to the theories (yes multiple) of evolution that are out there.

First, I must say that there are profound differences in micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Nearly all scientists (including proponents of intelligent design) agree that micro-evolution continually occurs as species adapt to environments and adapt to change. However, macro-evolution is an entirely different matter.

While micro evolution is visible today, it is horizontal. In other words, it happens within a species as lateral change: i.e., the wolf becomes a dog. However, it never happens vertically: the dog never becomes a cat or any other species. Regardless of how many minute or lateral changes occur as a result of breeding or adaptation (a Chihuahua is certainly different from a Great Dane) a canine is still canine.

We also never see macro-evolution in action today. The common argument is that the changes are too small in scale to observe over the billions of years required for them to occur. However, this is a weak argument because even if this were true, we should still see transitional forms in existence that are somewhere in between the processes. We do not see these and even the fossil record is sketchy at best.

There is also the problem of survival. Evolution is commonly understood as survival of the fittest. As time elapses only the strong remain. However, a simple case study of the bee soon reveals facts about its complexity. In the time required for these survival characteristics to evolve from a primordial soup, the bee would have been extinct long before it would have evolved enough to survive.

There are also some serious issues from other angles. For instance: if we accept the theory that the earth is billions of years old, we also accept that the sun is billions of years old. However the laws of math and physics dictate this is impossible. The sun is deteriorating at a measureable rate. If one extrapolates backward through the millennia, one does not go back very far before the sun is so large that it would have already engulfed the earth. This obviously did not occur so the earth must be "younger" than so many propose.

The final objection I will raise (though there are many, many more), is related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics also known as the Law of Increasing Entropy. While it would be naive to say that order cannot arise amid entropy (it can if certain definite criteria are met), the theory of evolution does not effectively satisfy these criteria.

Therefore, as we may observe readily today, most biological and physical systems consistently gravitate toward entropy and chaos (though often slowly) not the other way around. This flies in the very face of evolutionary theory which proposes that things are continually moving forward. We simply do not observe this in action today.

As I said before, there are many serious flaws with evolutionary theory including the fact that it is often taught as irrefutable fact, when indeed it is still only theory that cannot be reproduced in a lab any more than theories of creation or intelligent design can. I believe it should be taught only as a theory along with other theories of creation or theories of intelligent design, or other theories of origin. Only when all theories are weighed, explored, and tested can science be true to its own skepticism and only then can science advance.

(If anyone is interested in exploring other sides of the story, I have posted a link to a great article on my blog www.alwaysing.blogspot.com. I also recommend (but did not quote from tonight) such books as Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, The Young Earth by John D. Morris, PhD., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth by Vardiman, Snelling, & Chaffin (eds.), The Case for a Creator by Lee Stroebel, The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry & John Morris, to name a few.)